micah anderson <[email protected]> writes: > I want to emphasis a bit what Moray wrote above. If travel sponsorship > is eliminated because other things are too expensive, that results in a > Debconf where only people who can afford to go can go. It raises the > economic minimum bar to a level where we cut people off from attending > and that results in a completely different Debconf than we have ever had > before. This shouldn't be something that is just waved away so > trivially.
In my experience, travel sponsorship has been conditional on having funds available for the rest of debconf. So in practice, saying that we budget 0 for travel sponsorship until the rest of debconf is funded is is not that radical a change. Of course, there are unfortunate side effects of waiting until the last minute to confirm offers of travel sponsorship, but I think confirming budget for travel sponsorship 5 months before debconf (as ana proposes in a different thread) would actually be a big improvement over the (recent) past. d _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
